Hugo Rifkind, writing in the Times about the Cherie Blair case that hit the headlines a day or so ago. While I tend to agree with the point that the National Secular Society is almost as irritating as believers when it comes to the old victimhood poker, Rifkind really excels himself in twattisheness:
Annoyingly, though, and as my philosophy degree taught me in week one, it’s only Cherie’s lot that make conceptual sense. There’s no such thing as abstract morality. It doesn’t even make any sense. If God isn’t the ultimate answer, what is?
Oh, ferfucksake! Does it matter? Atoms floating about in space? Who cares? And as some commenters to the original article point out, it would appear that Rifkind didn’t attend week two of his philosophy course. Morality is not the preserve of the religious. Those of us without belief do not need some imaginary friend with threats of eternal damnation to be able to differentiate between right and wrong.
Sooner or later, I always think, secularists are going to have to bite the bullet, ditch “morality” and “fairness” and all that Goddish guff, and start talking about convenience. Crimes are wrong, because they are inconvenient. Value systems are good, because they make life nicer. Murder is a hassle. It’ll never be stirring stuff, but at least it’s honest.
Jesus, but that’s some claptrap there. Crimes are wrong because they are violence against another. That is wrong not inconvenient or a mild hassle. Wrong. Period. I don’t have any belief in deities, spaghetti monsters or the supernatural, but I can tell that crime is somewhat more serious than “inconvenient”. Where do newspapers dig these cretins up from?
I don’t have any belief in…spaghetti monsters?
For shame,Sir!
STB.
Meh 😀
I think you’re misconstruing his argument.
What I think he’s saying is that being hectored by priggish secularists such as Dawkins and the NCC is just as annoying as the same treatment from po-faced ministers of the church, and perhaps even a little more, because the churchman is likely to understand the irrational basis of his belief, but the secularist may well not admit that pretty much any moral philosophy rests on beliefs that either cannot be justified by reason and logic or doing so would be a monumental waste of time.
Take for instance your:
“Crimes are wrong because they are violence against another”
I agree, but I don’t know whether I could establish this on the basis of a rational argument that didn’t rest on some underlying irrational pre-supposition. Nor do I think it necessary to try. As long as we recognise the limits of logic, and thereby what is outside its scope.
.-= My last blog ..One to watch =-.
I would suggest that there is a rational basis for the point. A society that does not proscribe crimes will be a violent one to the point where there could be no cohesion and life would be savage and short – it goes against survival. Given that man is a social animal, commonly agreed rules of interaction are necessary for survival of the group and individuals within it. Given that, recognising the damage that violence against another causes is a perfectly logical and rational position to take. So much so, that every society whatever belief systems apply, adopt those basic principles.
That said, if he simply confined himself to being annoyed by the Dawkins and NSS preaching, I’d agree. They irritate the hell out of me, too.